/lit/ - Literature

>>21432673
Deluze.

>>21432673
>twitt
Georges Gurvitch said it better... Or at least less dumb:
>Thus we arrive at the third and last error proper to Marx's dialectic: it is not only an ascending dialectic but it is also an apologetic dialectic. It is the apology for the second phase of communism, the apology for the classless society, the apology for the gradual extinction of the State, the apology for the disappearance of all coercion and all obstacles, the apology for perfect harmony on earth. . It is the apology for the end of history. Marx's realist dialectic concludes, then, in an eschatology in which the prophetic announcement of salvation and the end of history come together. Is it necessary to insist on the fact that Marx's ascending and apologetic dialectic, despite all the realism displayed along the way, only finally serves to prove what had already been admitted beforehand: that the ideal ground built by the proletariat will not be long in coming to fruition?

>>21432714
this post encapsulates why post 1900's philosophy is complete garbage so I guess you accomplished what you set out to do

>>21432673
Hang all Twitter users

>>21432717
Except it doesn't start in the last century. Almost the same can be said almost every major western philosopher and he does:
On Plato
>In the first place, Plato is an avowedly apologetic. The existence of an eternal world of immutable ideas is affirmed in advance, as is the thesis that the sensible world is only an appearance.
it is an ascending and not a descending dialectic (this distinction comes from Plato himself). It is the "exit from the cave." If we limit ourselves to the conception of the dialectic as a method, and not as a movement of reality, the dialectic cannot be descending. Plato indeed, I do not claim to know "the secret of the gods"; it does not claim to know where the supreme Idea, the idea of the Good, comes from; nowhere does it affirm that this idea has been created to the others, nor that the eternal ideas have produced the sensible world. Therefore, his dialectic is in no way intended to become "descending". Platonic dialectic consists in being a positive dialectic, which ends in a consoling, healthy result, in a kind of beatitude that the contemplation of eternal ideas makes possible. It must be observed that not all ascending dialectics have this character; descendant dialectics, on the other hand, always possess it. Let us point out, among the ascending dialectics that are negative, that is to say, that do not lead, at least directly, to a consoling, healthy, harmonious and conciliatory solution, that of Dionysius the Areopagite, an Alexandrian from the fifth century (pages 65-72); that of the negative theology of the Middle Ages, which was content to deny all positive propositions relative to God and affirm "learned ignorance"; and, finally, that of Pascal, that of the second Fichte (pp. 83-100) and that of Kierkegaard. Negative rising dialectics can be said to be closer to dialectical empirio-realism than positive rising dialectics, of which Plato is a prime example.

>>21432789
the difference is the ancients were usually creating systems of thought rather than doing vapid marxian or otherwise word soup inspired social criticism

>>21432807
There are still Philosophers creating systems of thought since the turn of the century up until the 21st.
For starters, the Existentialists, Wittgenstein with the Tractatus, more recently Deleuze with Difference and Repetition (further elaborated in the C&S books), recently Philosophers including Bernardo Kastrup have done a great deal to formalize panpsychism into an overarching system. Your ignorance is immense.

>>21432821
>deleuze
lel. I'm sure this is earth shattering

>>21432807
No they weren't. Socrates didn't even write down his opinions lol.
Kant even says thi
> It was an enterprise worthy of an acute thinker like Aristotle to try to discover these fundamental concepts; but as he had no guiding principle he merely picked them up as they occurred to him, and at first gathered up ten of them, which he called categories or predicaments. Afterwards he thought he had discovered five more of them, which he added under the name of post-predicaments. (Critique of Pure Reason, Transcendental Doctrine of Elements)

>>21432673
>t. hasn't read orgy

>>21432673
posting a w*man hardly proves your point, they have had nothing insightful or interesting to say ever throughout history

>>21432824
He does formalize a lot of underwritten metaphysical currents, at least is one of the few philosophers who openly attempted to construct an adequate and full metaphysical system for modern day—one of the few to do so since anti-Hegelianism (a.k.a. Anti system-building) has prospered.

>>21432673
>anarchism
anyone who espouses anarchism is naive at best, more than likely braindead. anarchy is quite literally impossible, and any situation that can be remotely viewed as being in a state of anarchy will inevitably be brought under authority by an individual/group/force that can assert authority, and to prevent such a thing from occurring would once again, require an in-individual/group/force to oppose said authority, thereby being... authoritative.

>>21432673
do you study philosophy formally? just curious

pic made me gag a little by the way

>>21432673
baudrillard

>>21432938
>It's unpossible!

>>21432673
Not true at all. The best philosophers who truly think for themselves question dogma others dare not touch, and are hence ignored. See for instance pic related or what is written by Bernardo Kastrup, Chris Carter, or Neal Grossman.

>>21432821
I'm interested in this anon. Is there anyone else in the 21st century attempting to create crazy original philosophical system stuff? I've looked into those like Speculative Realists, Badiou etc... and I love this shit. The most autistic, voluminous and all-encompassing the better

>>21432938
It's not impossible. It's just unimagined by you thus far.
The way it can is through organization and effective propaganda (the word didn't originally mean lies). When more people see how it works and makes "civilization" look like the prison that it is, people would fight for it.

The "authority" would be in each and every community and organized by direct democracy. An authoritarian would rise and have to convince a superior number of DUMB FUCK eager to die soldier boys to die for said authoritarian. This is the status quo, but it can be reversed

>>21433854
I haven't compiled my notes yet anon, but I assume they would qualify. I was planning on not publishing, unless my estate decides too. But maybe I'll post it on 4chan just because.

>>21432938
Some anarchist lines of thought have authoritarian attributes. Just because there isn't a state doesn't mean there's no authority to be had. Also, have you never heard the quote "Every anarchist is a baffled dictator"?

>>21433965
> "civilization" look like
so its an optics campaign thing rather than it actually BEING better?

>>21432938
I'm an Anarcho-fascist, anon. Any organization beyond the village must be destroyed. The principle of the village must be the protection of the volk.

>>21433965
doesnt that kinda fall apart with natural variance in people and ability? you dont have to be a dumb fuck to want this guy who's a bad ass to have more of a say than the village idiot.

I could only see constant programming stoping this. As well as a disregard for ability in general.

>>21434082
If you read this >>21433737 you'd see how nationstates aren't civilized or better than country/village/tribal life. The comforts of industrial and technological society have only served to make their world look better, okay, in many ways be better. But it has been the same contract of servitude, and a contract that changes whenever they feel like it, whenever they fail. Wars are fought for their sake.

>>21434093
I don't get what you mean. A guy or two will want to promote a "badass" as the new king because they're sad a village idiot eats well and has a comfy home? Yeah, constant positive reinforcement is needed, but that would be handled and trained into this society by direct democracy. A religious sect could make a horrible mistake by cutting women out of it and maybe their children would grow up a bit stunted, but we have the ability to grow and learn from our mistakes. The wars and plagues we seem to never learn a damn thing from come about systemically. This rotten system we've inherited is the cause of it.

Was going to write something lengthy about DD but let's cut it back to the obvious essence.
A nature governance of true civilization is. the wisdom of the elders to hold together the volatility of youth. The natural variance can be it's strength

>>21432673
as if anarchy doesn't just descend into power struggles, literal slavery, and class disparity. the only feasible anarchy would require enforcement, which is absurd.

>>21432673
>Polymath metaphysician logician algebraic topologist
>Read Kant's CPR three hours a day for five years, proceeded to complete the table of Categories
>Revolutionized epistemology making metaphysics scientific
C.S. Peirce.

>>21434527
Langan did it better. Much better.

>>21434254
>I don't get what you mean. A guy or two will want to promote a "badass" as the new king because they're sad a village idiot eats well and has a comfy home? Yeah, constant positive reinforcement is needed, but that would be handled and trained into this society by direct democracy. A religious sect could make a horrible mistake by cutting women out of it and maybe their children would grow up a bit stunted, but we have the ability to grow and learn from our mistakes. The wars and plagues we seem to never learn a damn thing from come about systemically. This rotten system we've inherited is the cause of it.
This is the delusion of people like Rousseau. The idea that tribal lifestyles would not be just as violent and warlike is false. You are assuming a kind of democratic agreement which WILL NOT OBTAIN. The tribes who are more warlike and authoritarian are going to conquer those who are not. Because as much as anarchists don't like to admit it, there are certain technological and strategic advantages to having an authoritarian governmental structure. People cannot just decide against it happening. These things confer massive competitive advantages. And humans are inherently political because of their nuerology. There is only a set amount of people who you can view as registering your in-group, and you will prioritize the interests of those people over the out-group.

>>21434715
>There is only a set amount of people who you can view as registering your in-group, and you will prioritize the interests of those people over the out-group.
There are anarchist strains of thought that fully support this. Not all anarchists have an egalitarian view of humanity.

>>21432673
To the turn of which century are you referring to?

>>21434794
Such as?

>>21432911
t. body without (female) organs

If trannies are so concerned about passing, why they always out themselves by talking about Deleuze?

>>21432673
I prefer science. Beyond a point, philosophy is a word association game. Its results can't be tested, only argued about endlessly. Science does the same thing too, make up bullshit constructs and theories, but it's results are always tested. There are 2 exceptions: theoretical physics and authoritative fauci "science"

>>21432748
Twatter is fun
I enjoy harassing journalists politicians and media personalities.

>>21432673
>read this word salad pseud crackpottery alive and
If this is what you hate, you could just read Russell and Moore.

>>21432789
Plato’s metaphysics are grounded in real arguments that have to actually be considered and dealt with rather than hand waved away by saying it’s “utopian” and that hurts your fee fees. Plato presents actual problems for the nominalist account of universals which have never been overcome by nominalists. Unless you want to do so you can shut up whining about the realm of Forms being mean and utopian.

>>21434877
Proudhon, Bakunin, Stirner, Hoppe, etc. Please don't tell me you're debating Anarchism without knowing the key strains of thought

>>21432673
That tweet is not a word salad. I understood exactly what she was saying. Op, you know when you don't understand a word you can look it up right?

>>21434914
You can't argue that philosophy is "just" a word game when you can't even use apostrophes correctly. It prompts the reader to believe that you struggle to understand the terms used in philosophy, not that philosophy itself is problematic.

>>21432851
>but as he had no guiding principle he merely picked them up as they occurred to him
Imagine being this filtered by Aristotle. You just reminded me that Kant actually made this ludicrous statement.

>>21432789
>nowhere does it affirm that this idea has been created to the others, nor that the eternal ideas have produced the sensible world.
Imagine ignoring the dialogues which assert this, and then stating "nowhere is it said" as though purposive ignorance and selective reading entitles you to be this obtuse.

>>21432673
And the old ones are? The farther back you go the more cucked they are. Hermits who reject life and wait to die.

>>21434715
Tribes? More like settled and interwoven thoroughly modern communities, and they cannot start international conflagrations known as wars, and would not start semi-large battles unless coached by large sections of religious sectarianism. In enlightened spaces we’d see at worst drunken fist fights over women or sporting events. What’s your issues with that?
>I SWEAR I WONT COME TO ANY DEMOCRATIC AGREEMENTS
You are free to walk away from them, and punish yourself in doing so.
>The war like will conquer
They’ve thus far been in control. THAT is the problem with the world right now, hence anarchist thought, bozo
There are no advantages to having sociopaths ruling over us in various stages of slavery. The benefits of technology have given us some freedoms and we like them, but the sociopaths are squandering this one time heritage of fossil fuel.
>Neurology
Scientific term, yet you seem to be denying evolutionary processes. Which is it with you?

> There is only a set amount of people who you can view as registering your in-group
Which is why communities of direct democracy are so vital to our health, happiness and prosperity.
Won’t you please research this and join us bring about a more perfect union?

>>21434575
Based

>>21435083
I'm a different anon who was just curious. I just forget to say "different anon", because no one used to do that but for some reason now zoomers/newfags can't understand without it.

baudillad anyone?

>>21436284
>We'll just decide not to have war or conflicts!

Amazing that no one has done this yet.

>>21432673
this chick ran an unlicensed medical consulting practice she's like the arch huckster of twitter

>>21436284
> they cannot start international conflagrations known as wars, and would not start semi-large battles
all of that is simply relitive. a large proportion of people die in tribe like wars, its simply a variety of smaller ones rather than larger interconnected ones (and usually have higher per capita death tolls and general woes as per the square cubed law of society).
really the only macro difference is that less cool things will be produced from state backed initiatives.
> Which is why communities of direct democracy
I dont think all people are equal and the myopic enforcement of such would stifle actual human greatness. Im much more into lose regulatory elements that keep things in normative bounds.
a focus on negative rights with a smattering of positive rights to balance.
where superstructures can be created overturned and recast while not throwing out the baby each time the bathwater gets feted or someone just doesnt like the tempurture.
anyone can see on the lowest level that human society does not function on a directly democratic model, but with people of greater and lesser facility contributing, commanding, and acquiescing to different degrees. by fortune, ability, predilection, and pedegree.

>>21433818
That is such a bold statement that I'm compelled to give it a read. Is it really good or am I being memed? I know nothing of philosophy so please have pity for my pea-sized brain.

>>21436454
why dont you read some philosophy books first then?

I have not read the above book, so cant say anything to its quality in whole, but the title I feel kinda seems petty since the statement
>why there is obviously
necessarily brings to mind the purpose of the statement if it was so obvious.

>>21436405
I've already explained full-scale *international* warfare
>buh tribal warz!
Also already addressed. You'd rather stick to the very real possibility of of nuclear armageddon? Continuing forever wars for small groups profits? Never calling it all down to local scuffles? Can't risk it? Might lead to generational peace, and you don't want that?

>>21436427
>more people die in small scale scuffles than World Wars
Nonsense.
>without state funded World Wars no cool stuff will be invented. Like cluster bombs, bioweaponry, drone bombers, and the internet
Get fucked
>equality BAAAAD
A better way to live is all I'm pointing to. Our differences ought not leave millions in the streets millions more in abject poverty as they work themselves to death or into the streets, while others are elevated into mansions and leave them up to their eyeballs in underage pussy.
>nobody is doing direct democracy
They sure can, they surely should.
Buh some people dumb!
And we'll herd all the dumbest into one district? No.
And we'll all remain as stupid as liberal capitalist nationstatism has bred us to be? No.

Please stop defending the indefensible. It's a stupid system. C'mon.

>>21432673
Name 5 modern philosophers and then explain to me with reference to their ideas why they’re not worth reading. If based on your answers it appears that you have no familiarity with any of them, then I can and will happily dismiss your opinion as pseud posturing with zero substance. Try and wriggle out of this request, and I will also dismiss your opinion as pseud posturing. You have 30 mins.

>>21432673
>only humanities students in the humanities
>read this cockpottery alive
OP is having a stroke

>>21436529
>more people die in small scale scuffles than World Wars
proportionally, this is absolutely a fact.
>equality bad
never said this. just that it shouldnt be the fundamental principle, since people are not equal. it should be a contextual one.
I prefer a society of good willed sportman competition with a degree of safety wire rather than enforced mediocrity. even neo-liberals know to a degree that equity is preferable to equality.

>>21436529
been reading your posts and you're dead on. Not sure why smooth-brains are reeling against you so hard--though that's probably a good sign!

governments have done a good job of tainting/redefining the word 'anarchy'

>>21436628
t. pseud posturer

>>21436742
proportionally? are you actually retarded?
>>21436427
>relitive
oh, maybe you are.

but in all seriousness, do some research into ww2 deaths--specifically china & russia. Do you honestly think those numbers would/could be reached without governments?

>>21432938
>its impossible
>300000 years if something closer to anarchy than any other system
>12000 years of hierarchies
Widen your knowledge

for me its podcasters and yootoobers.
fuck books

>>21432673
There only are a few, but they still exist - e.g. Sebastian Rödl

>>/lit/thread/S15201563#p15203894